Cargando…

Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND: ESAT6-CFP10 (EC) skin test has been reported accurate and safe in identifying tuberculosis infection. We aimed to demonstrate the safety of EC skin test compared with tuberculin skin test (TST) in university freshmen. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Yang, Fang, Zhixiong, Huang, Wei, Zhang, Haiming, Luo, Si, Lin, Sha, Li, Shaojie, Lu, Shuihua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36221062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07765-w
_version_ 1784806245352341504
author Yang, Yang
Fang, Zhixiong
Huang, Wei
Zhang, Haiming
Luo, Si
Lin, Sha
Li, Shaojie
Lu, Shuihua
author_facet Yang, Yang
Fang, Zhixiong
Huang, Wei
Zhang, Haiming
Luo, Si
Lin, Sha
Li, Shaojie
Lu, Shuihua
author_sort Yang, Yang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: ESAT6-CFP10 (EC) skin test has been reported accurate and safe in identifying tuberculosis infection. We aimed to demonstrate the safety of EC skin test compared with tuberculin skin test (TST) in university freshmen. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical study in a university freshmen population with 16,680 participates in China, and finally 14,579 completed the study. About a half received an EC skin test and the others received TST. Adverse reactions were evaluated. RESULTS: Out of the 14,579 participants, 48.2% (7029/14,579) were males. The average age was 18.1 ± 0.8 years and the average BMI was 20.9 ± 3.1 kg/m(2). 50.4% (7351/14,579) participants received EC skin test and 49.6% (7228/14,579) received TST. The EC group had significantly less adverse reactions compared with the TST group (21.3%, 1565/7351 vs. 34.6%, 2499/7228, P = 0.000). The most common adverse reactions for EC were bleeding (5.63%, 414), dermatodyschroia (4.27%, 314), induration (3.90%, 287), swelling (2.49%, 183), pain (1.59%, 117) and pruritus (1.48%, 109). Bleeding, dermatodyschroia, swelling and erythema were significantly less in EC group (P < 0.05), while others were similar to those of TST. CONCLUSION: the EC skin test was safe in our cohort. And its incidence of total adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is less than that of TST. Most adverse reactions were mild or moderate, lasting less than 48 h and self-limiting. Considering the satisfactory diagnostic accuracy in identifying tuberculosis infection, the cost and safety, the EC skin test might be a potential candidate for replacing TST in high burden countries or those with routine BCG vaccination. Clinical Trials Registration. ChiCTR2000038622, Safety of the EC skin test to screen tuberculosis infection in two universities, compared with the tuberculin skin test: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. registered on 26/09/2020 at http://www.chictr.org.cn.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9552410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95524102022-10-12 Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study Yang, Yang Fang, Zhixiong Huang, Wei Zhang, Haiming Luo, Si Lin, Sha Li, Shaojie Lu, Shuihua BMC Infect Dis Research BACKGROUND: ESAT6-CFP10 (EC) skin test has been reported accurate and safe in identifying tuberculosis infection. We aimed to demonstrate the safety of EC skin test compared with tuberculin skin test (TST) in university freshmen. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical study in a university freshmen population with 16,680 participates in China, and finally 14,579 completed the study. About a half received an EC skin test and the others received TST. Adverse reactions were evaluated. RESULTS: Out of the 14,579 participants, 48.2% (7029/14,579) were males. The average age was 18.1 ± 0.8 years and the average BMI was 20.9 ± 3.1 kg/m(2). 50.4% (7351/14,579) participants received EC skin test and 49.6% (7228/14,579) received TST. The EC group had significantly less adverse reactions compared with the TST group (21.3%, 1565/7351 vs. 34.6%, 2499/7228, P = 0.000). The most common adverse reactions for EC were bleeding (5.63%, 414), dermatodyschroia (4.27%, 314), induration (3.90%, 287), swelling (2.49%, 183), pain (1.59%, 117) and pruritus (1.48%, 109). Bleeding, dermatodyschroia, swelling and erythema were significantly less in EC group (P < 0.05), while others were similar to those of TST. CONCLUSION: the EC skin test was safe in our cohort. And its incidence of total adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is less than that of TST. Most adverse reactions were mild or moderate, lasting less than 48 h and self-limiting. Considering the satisfactory diagnostic accuracy in identifying tuberculosis infection, the cost and safety, the EC skin test might be a potential candidate for replacing TST in high burden countries or those with routine BCG vaccination. Clinical Trials Registration. ChiCTR2000038622, Safety of the EC skin test to screen tuberculosis infection in two universities, compared with the tuberculin skin test: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. registered on 26/09/2020 at http://www.chictr.org.cn. BioMed Central 2022-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9552410/ /pubmed/36221062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07765-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Yang, Yang
Fang, Zhixiong
Huang, Wei
Zhang, Haiming
Luo, Si
Lin, Sha
Li, Shaojie
Lu, Shuihua
Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
title Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
title_full Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
title_fullStr Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
title_full_unstemmed Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
title_short Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
title_sort safety of a novel esat6-cfp10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36221062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07765-w
work_keys_str_mv AT yangyang safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT fangzhixiong safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT huangwei safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT zhanghaiming safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT luosi safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT linsha safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT lishaojie safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT lushuihua safetyofanovelesat6cfp10skintestcomparedwithtuberculinskintestinadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy